- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16036 RSA No. 100287 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100287 OF 2020 BETWEEN: NANDEPPA S/O. SHIDDAPPA HADADERA AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED SURVEYOR, R/O. GUDDAD MADAPUR, NOW AT DURGIGUDI BADAVANE, 2ND CROSS, HONNALLI, DIST. DAVANAGERE-577217. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LALITAMMA W/O. BASAYYA DODDAGOUDRA, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NANDIGUDI-562122, TQ. HARIHAR, DIST. DAVANAGERI. 2. SMT. JAYAVVA W/O. KARABASAPPA KONAPPALAVAR AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NANDIGUDI-562122, TQ. HARIHAR, DIST. DAVANAGERI. YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.11.26 10:16:59 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16036 RSA No. 100287 of 2020 3. GADIGEYYA S/O. SHIDDAYYA DUMMALLI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDDADAMADAPUR-581110, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI. 4. SHEKHARAPPA S/O. PUTTAPPA ARKACHARI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUDDADAMADAPUR, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.N. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4-NOTICE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN R.A.NO.66/2016 DATED 03.01.2020 BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT: HAVERI, IN MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S. NO.37/2014 DATED 21.07.2015 BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HIREKERUR, AS NULL AND VOID. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16036 RSA No. 100287 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. 2. Defendant No.3 in O.S.No.37/2014, who was the purchaser of portion of the suit schedule property from the defendant No.1, is before this Court in second appeal impugning the judgment of the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.66/2016 dated 03.01.2020. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that, the plaintiffs are the daughters and the defendant No.1 is the son of one Siddayya. The said Siddayya and his wife Rudramma died long back. The defendant No.1 had sold 1/6th share in the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.2 in the year 1975. Thereafter, in the year 1987, he sold the remaining portion to the defendant No.2 under a registered sale deed dated 31.01.1987. Thereafter, the plaintiffs, who are the sisters of defendant No.1, filed the present suit in the year 2014 seeking partition of the suit schedule property contending that they were kept in dark by the defendant No.1 while selling the same. They - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16036 RSA No. 100287 of 2020 contended that the sale deeds executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 on 07.05.1975 and 31.01.1987 are not binding on them and they are entitled to ignore the same in seeking their share in the suit schedule property. 4. The suit was resisted by the defendant No.3 alone since the defendant No.1 and 2 were placed ex-parte. The defendant No.3 contented that the plaintiffs have approached the Court with delay and the defendant No.3 had purchased the property on the basis of the fact that the sale in favour of the defendant No.2 was not objected to by the plaintiffs and as such, he is a bona fide purchaser without notice. He also contented that he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. He also contended that though the plaintiffs were minors at the time of the sale deed and they have not challenged the sale transaction within three years from the date of their attaining majority. 5. The Trial Court framed the following: “ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, themselves and defendant No.1 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16036 RSA No. 100287 of 2020 2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that, they have got their legitimate 1/3rd share each in the suit property? 3. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that, they are entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of their legitimate 1/3rd share each in the suit property, by metes and bounds? 4. Whether the defendant No.3 proves that, the defendant No. 1 has executed the registered sale- deed in favour of the defendant No.2 on 07.05.1975 and the defendant No.1 has executed sale-deed in the name of defendant No.3 on 31.01.1987 in respect of the suit property and since the, they are peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, as the bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration amount? 5. Whether the defendant No.3 further proves that, the said sale-deed dated 07.05.1975 in favour of the defendant No.2 and sale deed dated 31.01.1987 in favour of the defendant No.3 are executed for his family benefits and necessities by the defendant No.1? 6. Whether the defendant No.3 further proves that, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable unless the relief of cancellation of the sale-deed dated 31.01.1987 executed by the defendant No.1 in his (defendant No.3) favour? 7. Whether the defendant No.3 further proves that, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, since more than 12 years by denying the title of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 over the suit property, openly to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 and to the whole world - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16036 RSA No. 100287 of 2020 and thereby. perfected his title over the suit property, by way of averse possession? 8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time, as contended in the written-statement para Nos. 3 and 6 of the defendant No.3? 9. Whether the court fee paid is proper? 10. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of their legitimate share in the suit property by metes and bounds.? 11. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs, as sought for in the plaint? 12. What order or decree?” 6. The plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW1 and one witness was examined as PW2. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 were marked in evidence. The defendant No.3 was examined as DW1 and three witnesses were examined on his behalf as DW2 to DW4 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 were marked on his behalf. 7. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court held that each of the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit property. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs approached the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.66/2016 and after hearing, the First Appellate Court though dismissed the appeal, modified the share - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16036 RSA No. 100287 of 2020 of the plaintiffs as 1/6th each on the ground that the suit schedule property was the ancestral property. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this court in appeal. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the question of limitation and the bonafideness of the appellant was not appropriately considered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court records in its impugned judgment that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property and therefore, it held that by adopting the principle of notional partition, the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/6th share in the suit schedule property and the defendant No.1 is entitled for 4/6th share in the suit schedule property. 9. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, it holds that the plaintiffs are the sisters of defendant No.1 and even though they are married, they will be in constructive possession of the suit schedule property and their share cannot annihilate in the transaction made by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and 3. It held that the efflux of time and non-consent of the plaintiffs to the transaction would not in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16036 RSA No. 100287 of 2020 any way affect their title to the suit schedule property since they are also the sharers. 10. The above proposition adopted by the First Appellate Court cannot be found fault with. Even though the plaintiffs had attained majority and the suit is filed much later to the period of limitation of three years, the share of the plaintiffs cannot vanish on account of the alienation by the defendant No.1. It is pertinent to note that when the plaintiffs are seeking rights on the basis of their inherent right in the suit schedule property, the knowledge of the said transaction has to be positively imputed to them to invoke the limitation. Obviously, the provisions of Section 17 of the Limitation Act coupled with Article 110 of the Limitation Act would come in play. Therefore, it is necessary for the defendant No.1 to impute the knowledge of the sale deeds executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 and from such date, the limitation begins to run and it would be covered by the Article 110 of the Limitation Act. If we consider this, at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be held that the suit is hit by the law of limitation. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16036 RSA No. 100287 of 2020 11. In the given circumstances, the second contention in respect of the bona fide purchaser is no more res-integra. In a partition suit, the question of bona fide purchaser doesn't arise. A bona fide purchaser, at any stretch of imagination, cannot usurp the inherent rights of a sharer in the property. Howsoever, bona fide a person may be, he cannot prejudicially affect the right of a rightful owner. It was incumbent upon the appellant to be diligent and ascertain about the share of the plaintiffs before he ventures into purchasing the suit schedule property. Therefore, the question of bonafideness being alien in a suit for partition, such contention cannot be accepted. 12. Lastly, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in the partition, which has been ordered as per the impugned judgment, he may be permitted to seek equitable partition in the final decree proceedings and to allot the share of defendant No.1 in his favour. There is no impediment for the appellant to make such a submission before the Trial Court in final decree proceedings. Obviously, the share of defendant No.1 has also been spelled out in the judgment of the First Appellate Court. Therefore, the Trial Court can definitely - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16036 RSA No. 100287 of 2020 consider the question raised by the appellant that he is entitled for an equitable relief at the time of the partition. Under these circumstances, this Court finds that there is no substantial question of law, which would arise in the present appeal and therefore, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself with above observations. 13. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of. SD/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE YAN CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 18